MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283699612 · doi:10.1002/qj.4340

Understanding sources of Northern Hemisphere uncertainty and forecast error in a medium‐range coupled ensemble sea‐ice prediction system

2022· article· en· W4283699612 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Andrew Peterson, G. C. Moore Smith, Jean‐François Lemieux, François Roy, Mark Buehner, Alain Caya, P. L. Houtekamer, Hai Lin, Ryan Muncaster, Xingxiu Deng, Frédéric Dupont, Normand Gagnon, Yukie Hata, Yosvany Martinez, Juan Sebastian Fontecilla, Dorina Surcel‐Colan

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceClimatologyNorthern HemisphereEnvironmental scienceProbabilistic logicMeteorologyForecast skillEnsemble forecastingInitializationRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceStatisticsGeologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Global Ensemble Prediction System (GEPS) of Environment and Climate Change Canada was recently upgraded to a coupled atmosphere, ocean, and sea‐ice version from an uncoupled atmosphere‐only system. This has been operational since July 2019, with over a year of forecasts now available to evaluate the system throughout all seasons. Using metrics that score the forecast error in ice‐edge position, the spatial probability score and the integrated ice‐edge error, we investigate the spread–error relationship in probabilistic Arctic sea‐ice forecasts from the system and compare this with the skill of the system relative to persistence and a companion Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS). Within this ensemble framework, we explore the advantages of having a probabilistic forecast and probe its usefulness in addressing the errors in the system. Both the ensemble GEPS and the deterministic GDPS systems show enhanced sea‐ice prediction over persistence in all months except May and June, when significant biases exist in the systems in shallow‐sea and shelf regions. We attribute a significant portion of these biases to problems modelling landfast ice, but other sources of bias, including significant uncertainties in initializing and verifying sea‐ice analysis, also contribute. The lowest errors in the systems are found during September and continue at reasonably low levels through much of the boreal winter. The minimum and maximum extent periods, along with the early freeze‐up period, are shown to be periods for which the ensemble system offers enhanced benefits over a single deterministic forecast. For these periods, the errors are low and strongly correlated spatially with the ensemble spread. Nevertheless, we find that the ensemble system would likely still benefit from further improvement of the spread/error relationship in the system, currently hampered due to ensemble perturbations that are produced solely in the atmospheric component.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207